The 2026 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

[Squire]

no Surf Crap Classic either, by the look of it, which somehow got a 1.pro promotion.

My Van Poppel regret has officially increased slightly.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

My tour down under team;

Fiorelli
Dihnam
Zambanini
Dainese
Shiffer

We are aiming to peak later in the season

 

[RedheadDane]

My Van Poppel regret has officially increased slightly.

I dunno... as things are standing right now, things are looking very good for Van Poppel in the Surf Coast Classic.

Startlist for Surf Coast Classic - Men 2026

Competing teams and riders for Surf Coast Classic - Men 2026. Top competitors are Danny van Poppel, Brady Gilmore and Danny van Poppel.

www.procyclingstats.com

(Just to be clear; it is Danny Van Poppel you've picked, right? Not Boy... or Jean-Paul?)

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I appear to have 9 riders for TDU:
Dinham, Strand Hagenes, T. Rex, Glivar, Ballerstedt, Greenwood, Fontaine, Van Eetvelt and Pithie.

 

[Panda Claws]

What a way to start your first game. Congrats Mason!

 

[Panda Claws]

I dunno... as things are standing right now, things are looking very good for Van Poppel in the Surf Coast Classic.

Startlist for Surf Coast Classic - Men 2026

Competing teams and riders for Surf Coast Classic - Men 2026. Top competitors are Danny van Poppel, Brady Gilmore and Danny van Poppel.

www.procyclingstats.com

(Just to be clear; it is Danny Van Poppel you've picked, right? Not Boy... or Jean-Paul?)

Pick all three and they score double.

 

[skidmark]

Agree that it was pretty much a tossup this year, but for me the tiebreaker is completely the other way around!

How much more fun it is to have some exciting riders who I will feel much better about having predicted to have a good year than I would Evenepoel. And even though I think the Evenepoel (and Roglic etc. in previous years) strategy is the safest in terms of ensuring a high placing, I'm always on the quest for maximizing how many points my team can score. Dreaming of that 20k barrier! And I think having a bunch of mid-to-high cost riders, some of whom could concievably take a big step up and give me several near-Evenepoel scores if the planets, stars, galaxies and everything align, is the only way to have a chance of doing that. Because let's face it, the extra cheap guys that come with an Evenepoel pick aren't going to give me those points, or it's at least extremely hard to predict which random cheap ones will be the best. Because you would already have included the best cheap picks before that even with my strategy, so the extra ones you get are a bit more bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. Even my team this year has some of those, like Faure Prost and Carr. Which made me even more certain that I wouldn't go the Evenepoel route.

Sometimes that gamble really comes back to bite me though, like not having Roglic in 2023 and not having Remco in 2022 (but then I was saved by De Lie and still did well).

Other than that tiebreaker, I agree with all the things you say here. Another difference being that my approach to creating my team is far from as structured as yours.

That makes sense - yeah I always appreciate your team-building approach, as it mixes conventional down-the-middle picks with a risk appetite that accepts big swings, which is why you end up with a unique pick like Buitrago that can really swing things your way if you hit on that risk.

That also does elucidate the key difference in our approaches. I do think that my slow and methodical style leads to me having almost always sanding away the edges (ie bigger perceived downside risks) of my team, which in turn almost always has me in the top 10 of the popularity charts. That's maybe kinda boring from many perspectives, but I love the process - or at least until I get fatigued at the end and choose the Van Der Paars and Hatherlys of the world.

Anyway, I always appreciate having this kind of discussion at the start of the season, every year it brings out another nuance of the risk conversation. I also just noticed that in a couple of your posts right above my original one in this topic of conversation, you brought up a few points about risk (eg not missing out on 700 pointers that might go nuclear) that I made in my later post, oops. I wasn't ignoring those points, I just missed those posts (I think my browser was open when the posts were made but they didn't show up when I was replying).

Can't wait until the bulk of riders start their seasons!

 

[Squire]

That makes sense - yeah I always appreciate your team-building approach, as it mixes conventional down-the-middle picks with a risk appetite that accepts big swings, which is why you end up with a unique pick like Buitrago that can really swing things your way if you hit on that risk.

That also does elucidate the key difference in our approaches. I do think that my slow and methodical style leads to me having almost always sanding away the edges (ie bigger perceived downside risks) of my team, which in turn almost always has me in the top 10 of the popularity charts. That's maybe kinda boring from many perspectives, but I love the process - or at least until I get fatigued at the end and choose the Van Der Paars and Hatherlys of the world.

Anyway, I always appreciate having this kind of discussion at the start of the season, every year it brings out another nuance of the risk conversation. I also just noticed that in a couple of your posts right above my original one in this topic of conversation, you brought up a few points about risk (eg not missing out on 700 pointers that might go nuclear) that I made in my later post, oops. I wasn't ignoring those points, I just missed those posts (I think my browser was open when the posts were made but they didn't show up when I was replying).

Can't wait until the bulk of riders start their seasons!

Yeah, these discussions are part of the beauty of the set-and-forget style of this game. And because the premises are wildly different every year, it's not like one is giving away many 'secrets' either. Not that there really are many secrets anyway, as many different approaches have all been successful. And I don't think you can easily adopt somebody else's intuitive assessment of picks, as @SafeBet touched on in their team presentation.

I think I've alluded to this in previous years, but it's interesting how you categorize my approach as more risky and cite Buitrago as an example. In my eyes it's almost the opposite. I look at the upside of course, but I'm also thinking 'what does a bad season look like'. And in Buitrago's case, it still looks pretty good. There's always a stage race or three where he can recover points. A bad season for your Nys and Mohoric f.ex. has the potential of being much more of a bust. And I often stay away from the Tarling types (although him in particular was in the running for my team), where an okay season is barely more than just a repeat of his cost and he needs an actual good season to be a good pick.

My approach has generally yielded very few riders who bombed, with a few spectacular (but mostly unlucky) exceptions. I feel like a lot of my picks are rather risk-free in that a normal or even slightly bad season (or let's say slightly bad level) for them should in most cases be significantly better than their cost without needing them to step up to a new level or re-find an old level. With some exceptions of course (but not many this year, maybe only Vlasov and Faure Prost). Someone like Nordhagen or Morgado will likely be good picks even if they don't improve. They just need to not be ill at a time where it affects half (or more) of their seasons. Whereas Bisiaux, Del Grosso or Vansevenant, none of whom I picked, actually have to make a step up in terms of level or consistency, and same for Tiberi and Brennan to an extent.

The risk that I'm aware that I'm taking is in who I'm omitting sometimes, like Poole (and the aforementioned 2023 Roglic f.ex.). I'm probably more in the 'past results don't guarantee future results' camp than most players. But with Poole, that omission was also kind of a risk-minimizer in terms of ensuring I have riders who I'm very confident will at least have an unimpaired run. But with Poole's recent interview, that particular one may have been a mistake. Wish he had opened his gob slightly earlier.

And regarding your 'slow and methodical' approach, I'd say my teams might be even more slow cooked. It's just that my first draft is done very quickly, like in ten minutes, almost on pure intuition. No star ranking or anything. And then it's weeks or months of going 'hmm, is this guy really such a good pick' or 'oh, I maybe haven't considered this guy well enough'. And of course the inevitable flurry of ideas I get towards the end when more of the schedules are known, like with Buitrago, Morgado and Foldager this time. But luckily I'm able to totally put the CQ process aside for a few weeks here and there too, so I don't go crazy every winter.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

And I don't think you can easily adopt somebody else's intuitive assessment of picks

Hmm. The quote below made me think my second and to a lesser extent third time playing the game, when I was actively trying to learn from the analyses of (who I considered to be) the best players, might have had deeper-running effects than I thought (and perhaps would have liked). Then again it's been a while since I was doing this, so maybe my thinking would have developed in that direction regardless.

And it's almost disturbing to see how similar my thought process has been to theirs, too, which you will see shortly.

---

Whereas Bisiaux, Del Grosso or Vansevenant, none of whom I picked, actually have to make a step up in terms of level or consistency

To be fair Vansevenant did spend a lot of time on domestique duty for Evenepoel last year, including in the Ardennes where he scored a big chunk of his 2024 score (and where he claimed his form was at its best in 2025). So Evenepoel leaving should bump up his score even if he doesn't improve in any way.

 

[Squire]

Hmm. The quote below made me think my second and to a lesser extent third time playing the game, when I was actively trying to learn from the analyses of (who I considered to be) the best players, might have had deeper-running effects than I thought (and perhaps would have liked). Then again it's been a while since I was doing this, so maybe my thinking would have developed in that direction regardless.

I was mostly thinking in terms of a few specific picks, where your explanation for picking them was such that I could easily have written the exact same thing myself. O'Connor and Foldager f.ex. and maybe a couple of others I don't immediately remember without checking back.

And when I say 'can not easily adopt' I don't really exclude the possibility.

You still have a few picks which would go quite against my approach. I didn't even consider Küng for one second, and although you make a good case for him, he would still never be near my team even if I did think about him. Mohoric and Nys I mentioned in the post above, and Politt is definitely in the 'even a decent season can mean few points' category for me. Thijssen goes against my 'needs to get his act together' angle and Martinez has been on a downward trajectory even for his good years. But I still see your team as one of the strongest competitors, and among riders I didn't pick I really like Brenner and Crabbe and I think Vermaerke could potentially be a big joker. He was close to being my team too, but I was also a bit weary of getting rose-tinted glasses on behalf of UAE magic. Herregodts says hi.

To be fair Vansevenant did spend a lot of time on domestique duty for Evenepoel last year, including in the Ardennes where he scored a big chunk of his 2024 score (and where he claimed his form was at its best in 2025). So Evenepoel leaving should bump up his score even if he doesn't improve in any way.

His Ardennes points in 2024 weren't lost on me of course, but as I mentioned with Martinez in an earlier post, his LBL points were in a big group sprint. He could theoretically have been the last guy to cling on to that group, and if he didn't he'd be 28th and would have scored 8 points instead of 100. I don't actually remember how he looked in that race though. And he was good in Amstel that year, I'll give you that. But there it was also a case of if he was just slightly worse (like, 2025 level), and he could have been at the back of the group just 11 seconds back from the winner placing 10th to 39th.

As you can tell though, I definitely had a good look at him. And he was even in my team at one point, but I didn't feel that bad for taking him out.

 

[armchairclimber]

Don't any of you appreciate that my "pin the tail on the donkey" approach perhaps has its merits? Hmmm? Even if it is only for one or two weeks of the year, before I slide down to mid-table.

 

[Squire]

Don't any of you appreciate that my "pin the tail on the donkey" approach perhaps has its merits? Hmmm? Even if it is only for one or two weeks of the year, before I slide down to mid-table.

Other than Pellizzari in my view being a bit of a glorified Piganzoli, as in someone who pretty much had a best-case-scenario season already, and missing a few potentially important guys like Van Eetvelt and Laporte, I'd say it's still a somewhat conventional approach. With a few Aussies to please your sponsors with some TV visibility early-season.

 

[armchairclimber]

Other than Pellizzari in my view being a bit of a glorified Piganzoli, as in someone who pretty much had a best-case-scenario season already, and missing a few potentially important guys like Van Eetvelt and Laporte, I'd say it's still a somewhat conventional approach. With a few Aussies to please your sponsors with some TV visibility early-season.

Pellizzari says "How very dare you?"
Aussies were a bit of a surprise even to the manager. Chamberlain and Dinham were legacy 2025 picks. The other two were cheap street corner floozies who gave me the eye with a promise of premature ecstasy.

 

[Kazistuta]

Someone like Nordhagen or Morgado will likely be good picks even if they don't improve

In general I'm very much aligned with your reasoning, but I think Tarling and Nordhagen are very comparable, amd I also think a bit of bias play a part in you selecting him😉
I had Nordhagen last year and wasn't convinced in any way of what I saw/read.

He and Tarling are both highly touted and cost about the same, but I don't really understand the reasoning behind that Nordhagen doesn't have to improve to be a good pick. Being beaten by i.e. Honore in Guangxi, but still getting more than 25% of your points total from that race only padded his price.
I think Tarling showed his classics potential in 2024, and with a bit more TT luck this year he'll easily get back in the 500 points area, whereas Nordhagens way to 500 needs to go through lower level races, which really need to be the right races to succeed.
I think this is a case where you convinced yourself of one thing and then sticks to that idea (I do that myself sometimes), because I actually think Tarling/Nordhagen have the same situations/potential this year, and after an uneventful year with Nordhagen I opted for another way this year.
I would love to hear your arguments, but maybe this is just another case like the AWP-interview, where we read different things into it😇

 

[Squire]

In general I'm very much aligned with your reasoning, but I think Tarling and Nordhagen are very comparable, amd I also think a bit of bias play a part in you selecting him😉
I had Nordhagen last year and wasn't convinced in any way of what I saw/read.

He and Tarling are both highly touted and cost about the same, but I don't really understand the reasoning behind that Nordhagen doesn't have to improve to be a good pick. Being beaten by i.e. Honore in Guangxi, but still getting more than 25% of your points total from that race only padded his price.
I think Tarling showed his classics potential in 2024, and with a bit more TT luck this year he'll easily get back in the 500 points area, whereas Nordhagens way to 500 needs to go through lower level races, which really need to be the right races to succeed.
I think this is a case where you convinced yourself of one thing and then sticks to that idea (I do that myself sometimes), because I actually think Tarling/Nordhagen have the same situations/potential this year, and after an uneventful year with Nordhagen I opted for another way this year.
I would love to hear your arguments, but maybe this is just another case like the AWP-interview, where we read different things into it😇

Differing opinions are fun!

My favourite cyclists are usually Italians, Spaniards, the odd Colombian and Klöden, so I'm generally not very biased in favour of Norwegians. And I don't think I've ever read/listened to an interview with Nordhagen. But it is perhaps a little bit more exciting for me that such a giga talent is Norwegian, and I like his riding style.

Disagreeing on assessment of talent and potential is of course very valid. That's where everyone playing this game differ slightly, I guess. And I might possibly be overrating Nordhagen a lot. I did expect JSM to be a lot better, after all. And I thought Albanese was the next big thing after his U23 stint.

But I stand by my more strategic argument that you are disagreeing with.

First, Honoré and Double in Guangxi were from an early attack, so Nordhagen only really losing to Lafay and beating Narvaez on a very non-Nordhagen type of climb is quite amazing if you ask me. Nordhagen is doing the Vuelta in 2026, which was expected, but before that I expect quite a few lower level stage races with maybe a couple of WT ones. Which is exactly the kind of program where he can score a lot of points while staying at his Romandie/l'Avenir (and especially Guangxi!) level. None of those U23 races where he gets almost nothing. Assuming he doesn't get ill at the start of his schedule and takes half a season to get going again.

So that's Nordhagen's potential without improving. Now onto Tarling.

Tarling, as I've said in an earlier post, is quite a safe bet for some profit. Normal level in TTs will go a long way towards that, and he could get a very good profit by scoring GC points in flat-ish stage races with a TT or getting good classics results. But that is a way more risky proposition. There aren't that many classics, so he needs to hit a very small window of opportunity there. And hoping for some GC points when he's only done that once in his career (Wallonie as a first-year) is unreliable, although very possible. Whichever way you look at it, he is going to waste a lot of race days doing unsuitable stage races or a GT while 'waiting' for that one TT stage. Whereas Nordhagen will be presented with GC scoring opportunities pretty much every time he puts a race number on.

But the real big reason why I like my Nordhagen pick and I'm not too fussed about leaving Tarling out comes from pattern recognition. I had Onley when he went from 302 to 819, Van Wilder from 243 to 933, Uijtdebroeks from 253 to 574 while one year younger, Gaudu from 299 to 830, Mas from 285 to 897 etc. etc. So while I'm happy that Nordhagen might be a fine pick even without stepping up much, what I actually think/hope will happen is that he does step up. I think he is very much on that high-scoring GC talent trajectory. That's of course something one is very entitled to disagree with. But while Tarling might also be stepping up, his opportunities are a lot more unreliable in any case. Guys like Küng and Ganna took a lot more years to become reliable point machines.

Okay, this ended up being a lot longer than I planned. (as per usual)